I had an associate of mine recently bring a topic to me that I need help with responding. His argument is that although he believes in God, he doesn't believe the Bible is true because it has been edited. His argument is as follows.

"The Romans originally put the Bible together, who also happen to hate the Christians. It'd be illogical to believe that they're going to put in FACTS to support a religion. I'd also argue that the government has been constantly editing the Bible to keep things secret. Ever wonder why they wont let you see these "manuscripts"? And even with that, they have probably faked the manuscripts anyways."

The only argument of his I can knock out is the part about seeing the manuscripts. Unless you can read German, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic it'd be pointless to try and decode any of these documents.

I'm REALLY RELUCTANT to even try to argue with this guy, simply because he uses things he's learned from the History channel as evidence. But I've heard way too much about "The God Gene" and "Ancient Aliens" to believe anything I hear from them.

I had an associate of mine recently bring a topic to me that I need help with responding. His argument is that although he believes in God, he doesn't believe the Bible is true because it has been edited. His argument is as follows.

"The Romans originally put the Bible together, who also happen to hate the Christians. It'd be illogical to believe that they're going to put in FACTS to support a religion. I'd also argue that the government has been constantly editing the Bible to keep things secret. Ever wonder why they wont let you see these "manuscripts"? And even with that, they have probably faked the manuscripts anyways."

The only argument of his I can knock out is the part about seeing the manuscripts. Unless you can read German, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic it'd be pointless to try and decode any of these documents.

I'm REALLY RELUCTANT to even try to argue with this guy, simply because he uses things he's learned from the History channel as evidence. But I've heard way too much about "The God Gene" and "Ancient Aliens" to believe anything I hear from them.

First you need to find out where he gets his information from. Usually it's heresay or from a anti-Christian site or book. Then find out if he would accept another source or is that the only source he will accept as truth?

The other angle is to research the source and attack it's credibility. Most atheist sources on the Christian faith are 50% or more based in decpetion and outright lies. How they make you believe in them is mix a little truth with the lies basically using the logic that the truth will cancel out the lies. Which is basically how evolution works as well.

Where you make a mistake is taking him at his word that what he says about God's word is creditable. Always ask for the source then you know what you are up against. Because if it's a Christian hate site you maybe wasting your time. Because if he's a militant atheist he's not going to listen

One more thing to do if he keeps coming up with objections is that you right them down and as you answer each one put a line through it. And then when you get a few on the page show him his questions and that you answered them. Let him read them Then say: How many more most you ask before you believe? I met all that you asked of me did I not? At this point he is made to face reality on 2 levels.1) One that he can see that you wrote down.2) That he's really dodging reality.

You see what a person can "see" and hear has a much higher percent of effect on them in your favor then just using words. Because words boil down to whether they respect you enough to listen or not. Seeing is convincing on another level.

If it's heresay then you pretty much got him because even a court of law does not accept heresay and you point that out to him.

Atheists use sources that are usually not creditable that is why you first need to find out the source and go from there. Allowing only an atheist to convince them on what true about religion is like claiming Dawkins is the foremost authority on religion even though he has no degrees in theology.

And prayer is a must because only God can tenderize the heart so your words will stick and plant seeds of truth that will grow.

There is no credible argument against the manuscripts. They are indeed genuine. Ikester already pretty well covered this. No archaeologist would take such a statement seriously. There is a reason why you don't see many atheists using this argument.

He says he's a Christian but he doesn't see why God would be mad at G*ys and such, so his "cop out" is that the manuscripts must be faked. His other statement is that "Well they wont let anyone see these documents." Well OF COURSE NOT, they're absolutely PRICELESS. Guttenberg Bibles which are German Bibles written around Lutheran's time are worth a couple million a piece. Only 63ish Guttenberg Bibles have ever been found. I would be one to argue that these manuscripts are well over millions of dollars, and not to mention they're actually the only thing out there that proves the Bible was not edited. If I was the holder of documents like that, I'd be reluctant to even let a Theologian see them less likely any Joe off the street.

Another argument is that the Bible has been changed because it has been translated so many times. Now I DO AGREE that there's been some change, but there's practically very little difference between the Constantine Bibles (300 A.D.) and the modern day Bibles.

I would also consider God a very poor excuse for one if he allowed mortals like us to corrupt his word and twist it around. But I don't mind saying that because I know that he hasn't let us done that, because as the founder of the book it's his job to ensure that it is stable.

I may need to know which parts of the bible he doesn't agree with, and handle each case as it comes. Scripture interprets scripture. If one were to alter the NT for example they will need to go back to the OT and make some alterations as well because there is such a constancy and consistence of scripture that no mortal can change. This is the immutable counsel of the divine will. the bible is not some 'cleverly devised myth' as Peter says. Indirect evidence of the incorruptibility of scripture is that many false teachers have tried to do so but none has succeeded in coming up with a sustainable lie. Again this is a working of the Spirit of God.

Here's the thing Nash, your "friend" is basing his entire argument off the totally erroneous historical relativists mantra that “if you tell a lie long enough, loud enough, it will be believed”.

The easiest way to dismantle his entire argument are the following historical facts: If you set aside the entire New Testament and use ONLY the VERBATUM quotes from the early church fathers from the two centuries (Remember, they had the original OR had access to the original manuscripts. AND some of them has access to some of the first-hand eyewitnesses), you can reconstruct the ENTIRE New Testament, save eleven (11) versus ( See “General Introduction to the Bible ~ Norman Geisler and William Nix [Chicago, Moody Press 1986] for a breakdown of ALL the quotes) .

First – ALL of these quotes come LONG before any errant interpolations could be inserted into, and affect the text.

Second – Even some of those opposed to Jesus and Christianity quoted massive amounts of these letters (contained in the New Testament) in order to ridicule, mock and refute them. And in doing so, they recorded, for posterity, these quotes; and, in doing so, unwittingly dismantled some of the arguments of today (most especially the one your friend is attempting to use).

Third – Given the above facts, the Romans COULD NOT have put the Bible together, as it was put together long before.

Conclusion: ALL of the supposed mistakes “claimed” by the historical revisionists can be eliminated (as an argument) in one fell swoop. And therefore the argument fails.

I've dropped the argument with him, I could already see I was wasting my time. These are some great answers however that I can use in the future. When someone comes to me with "evidence" from the "History Channel" it disturbs me, they've become very bias and they're starting to put out shows for money and not history.

I've dropped the argument with him, I could already see I was wasting my time. These are some great answers however that I can use in the future. When someone comes to me with "evidence" from the "History Channel" it disturbs me, they've become very bias and they're starting to put out shows for money and not history.

Well there you go. You found the source and realized it was not worth the effort. You did the right thing.

well i read that. i prefer not to get into that at all. not that i dont say $$ hasnt affected mecidine or that america hasnt tried eugenics. that said quaker and i debated the gold at knox. his info on what was there is off as he hasnt been there and takes the word from those that dont know and post stuff on the net without reasearch.

well i read that. i prefer not to get into that at all. not that i dont say $$ hasnt affected mecidine or that america hasnt tried eugenics. that said quaker and i debated the gold at knox. his info on what was there is off as he hasnt been there and takes the word from those that dont know and post stuff on the net without reasearch.

i have been to knox recently and was there for basic.

My only problem with Knox is that NO ONE is allowed to step foot inside that base and see the gold. Which irritates me because it is our gold after all.